The RICO lawsuit brought against Türkiye Garanti Bankası A.Ş. and its Dutch subsidiary, Garanti Bank International N.V. (GBI), both of which report to the Spanish banking giant BBVA (Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.), has been transferred to a new judge. The transfer came over the banks’ objections, which included allegations that the plaintiffs had engaged in “judge shopping.”
During the August 21, 2025 hearing on the matter, plaintiffs’ attorney Jeremy Friedman argued that the new case “arises directly out of post-judgment and collection proceedings” and that Judge overseeing the post-judgment collection proceedings arising from the 740-million-dollar default judgment against Uğur Tatlıcı was already familiar with the matter.
The banks’ legal teams opposed the transfer. In their formal objection, GBI’s lawyers characterised the plaintiffs’ motion as “a transparent attempt at judge-shopping. Nothing more.” They argued that the two cases are fundamentally different. GBI’s lawyers contended that the plaintiffs were seeking to have the case heard before a judge they perceived as favourable, even though the claims, parties, and subject matter were, in the bank’s view, distinct from the existing proceedings.
Despite these arguments, the judge hearing the demand granted the transfer after consulting with the judge who is overseeing the collection proceedings in another bench, finding that the cases are related and should be handled in one division.`
With this ruling, all hearings previously scheduled before the old judge have been cancelled and will be rescheduled before the new judge.
A Different Judicial Culture
After lawyers on both sides argued for and against transferring the case, Judge Curley did not issue a decision based solely on the arguments presented at the hearing. Instead, he indicated he would speak with the judge overseeing the 2018 post-judgment collection tied to the $740 million default judgment against Uğur Tatlıcı before reaching a decision. Following that conversation, the original Judge ordered the transfer.
For those accustomed to European judicial practice, that sequence of events is worth pausing on.
“I have never encountered such a practice in our system,” said a senior court administrator in Luxembourg when asked about the Florida example. “Any transfer or reallocation must follow a written plan, with reasons stated on the record. Informal conversations between judges are insufficient and, in fact, disfavoured.”
This kind of judge-to-judge consultation may be entirely routine in American courtrooms and nothing in the record suggests it was anything other than standard practice here. But for a European observer, a transfer decision reached through a conversation rather than a documented written process reflects a genuinely different way of doing things. Whether that difference matters is, perhaps, a question of which side of the Atlantic you are standing on.
What the Transfer Could Mean
For the plaintiffs, the transfer is a double-edged sword. Their new billion-dollar claim now lands before a judge they acknowledge has familiarity with the earlier 740-million-dollar default judgment.
Yet that very background could cut the other way.
With a broad view of the dispute’s history, the new judge may approach the latest filing with a fuller picture of how the case has developed including who has been pursuing whom, and for how long.
Court records show that Mehmet Tatlıcı already holds attachments on Uğur Tatlıcı’s assets. The Downs Law Group, P.A. and Mehmet Tatlıcı have now extended that pursuit by bringing a fresh lawsuit that names two global financial institutions as defendants.
Banks carry more reserves and insurance coverage than most individual judgment debtors. Whether that financial reality played any part in the decision to file against the banks is not stated in the court record. But it is a question the proceedings are likely to surface.
RICO requires plaintiffs to demonstrate racketeering activity conducted as part of a continuing enterprise along with evidence of specific intent and coordinated conduct among those accused. The plaintiffs contend those elements are present. The banks deny it. The court has not yet ruled on the matter.
That unresolved dispute sits at the centre of the case. The banks have already pressed their position in dismissal filings, and their legal teams are expected to continue doing so.
A Local Florida Lawsuit With Very Large European Problems
With the case now in a new division, the banks maintain that they are foreign entities improperly brought into a Florida court and that the lawsuit is, in their words, a baseless “transparent cash grab.” The plaintiffs dispute that characterisation and stand behind their claim.
Whether the case reaches a negotiated resolution remains to be seen. Should it eventually do so, the implocations across the international banking sector would be hard to ignore.
For a European observer, the very premise of the case raises eyebrows. The idea that a foreign bank regulated, supervised, and answerable to authorities thousands of miles from Florida could find itself pulled into an American courtroom over a client’s alleged debts is not something most European banking lawyers or regulators would expect to encounter.
Whether that is how this case ultimately reads is for the court to decide. But it is a question that compliance departments at European institutions with any U.S. exposure are likely already asking.
Should the case settle, it would give other creditors reason to wonder whether a similar path is worth exploring when more conventional routes have dried up. Some would see that as overreach. Others would argue that international banks have long relied on jurisdictional complexity as a form of insulation and that a ruling of this kind would simply close a gap.
What more litigation of this type could do is pull more foreign banks into American debt collection disputes .
However this case ends, through a verdict or something reached across a negotiating table, it will draw attention to just how far American courts are prepared to go when pursuing foreign financial institutions, and what that means for banks that do even limited business with U.S.-connected clients.